fireemblemfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Archetype
Lugh (FE6) Suggested by GreatDane112 for Merric archetype. Opposed by User:Nauibotics. The result should be decided by the majority. For the time being, leave it off the article. -- [[User:KhangND|'Khang']] (talk) 04:11, May 3, 2017 (UTC) :After putting some thought to this, I think I support GreatDane112's suggestion. Lugh is the first recruitable mage, and his mother is Nino, which would at least explain his skill with magic, despite not being raised or taught by her. Without a mentor stated by him, I suppose this is a good reason for consideration? -- [[User:KhangND|'Khang']] (talk) 12:27, May 4, 2017 (UTC) ::It's not that I oppose his reasoning, but here's where things become super gray. How much does Lugh fulfill the archetype? Here's what Lugh fulfills: He is the first mage and he is of similar personality. However, we've denied certain characters in other games who have Merric traits like Ricken for example. Otherarrow stated that because Ricken is the second mage AND has no acknowledge teacher, we weren't supposed to count him. This is even though Ricken is the first MALE mage, has a similar personality, and is a Wind Mage. GreatDane insisted on putting the "friendship to the Lord character" point, which is true for Merric and a lot in his archetype, but Lugh is not friends with Roy, joining him to make Bern pay for destroying his home, not because he's friends with Roy. Ricken on the other hand, idolizes Chrom so at least there is some bond between the two that has been established. It's like how strict we've been on a lot of these archetypes like Navarre/Lon'qu. Lon'qu is in personality the same as Navarre, but because he's not fought as an enemy nor is there a canon relationship with the Lena-like character of the game, Lissa, we don't include him on that Archetype, despite the strong similarities. It's up to you guys. I only have been acting in the manner I have because of how strict Otherarrow has been on adding characters to this page. If he did not allow Ricken to be on the page mainly because he has no identified mentor, I doubt Lugh would fly either and why he wasn't on the page before this whole debate. —Nauibotics (talk) 03:06, May 9, 2017 (UTC) Nasir and Ena (FE9) I feel they should count for the Malledus Archetype, as they act as a tactical confidant for Ike (and Petrine in Ena's case) in Path of Radiance. ''They seem to check the boxes off for what counts as one. GreatDane112 (talk) 12:41, May 3, 2017 (UTC) :But they're not Ike's main tactical confidant like most Malledus are. Soren and Titania fulfil that role much more than Nasir and Ena.—Nauibotics (talk) 18:43, May 3, 2017 (UTC) ::But they still fulfill that role to at least some degree, they may not be Ike's main tacticians, but when they are they bring forth some of the most important ones in the story. I'd also argue Ena to be something of a villanous example (even if it's only temporary) as she does act as Petrine's main tactical accompaniment and a foil to Soren who fulfills the archetype for much the same reasons that Ena does. I don't think there has to be just Soren and Titania when Nasir and Ena are behind a good amount of the important decisions behind both sides. GreatDane112 (talk) 18:50, May 3, 2017 (UTC) Caeda I don't believe Ephraim, Eirika, Lucina and Azura should be included in the Caeda archetype since they actually are ''Lord characters in their respective games. I'm also not sure about Deirde's inclusion; she's important, but not "secondary protagonist" important the Julia is in the Second Generation Are You Serious (talk) 16:02, May 4, 2017 (UTC) : I'd contest Azura, she's essentially Corrin's right-hand and main love interest, checking the boxes for the Archetype. She's also not the protagonist, which is the main criteria of the Lord. GreatDane112 (talk) 17:39, May 4, 2017 (UTC) ::Thinking about it, Ephraim and Eirika are dual Lords. One has a slightly reduced role in the other's route, but they are both important throughout the entire game. I think that much is confirmed. Lucina is interesting and more Caeda like given she has a supporting role in the first half of Awakening and is more involved directly in the second half, but is essentially just slightly less important than Chrom or the Avatar in terms of the story events. Awakening is really the story of the Chrom and Avatar. ::As for Azura, she's not the Avatar's main love interest as much as the game does not have canon pairings. This point makes even less sense if the Avatar is female as there is no same-sex S-Support between Azura and the female Avatar. I would say Azura has Lord qualities, but she's essentially a deuteragonist when compared to the story being mainly about the Avatar. Azura is the most prominent ally and heavily involved in all three routes, more so than any past Caeda has been. If anything the entire Hoshidan and Nohrian siblings are Caedas too in terms of their importance in the Birthright and Conquest stories respectively. Hard to say. This is one of those archetypes that is really hard to define (and was only added recently I might add).—Nauibotics (talk) 00:58, May 5, 2017 (UTC) Corrin (FE 14) is a Malledeus??? Ive noticed someone added in Corrin/Avatar for the "Malledeus" section... which is completely untrue as Corrin is not the strategist to the lord... HE IS THE lord character... and he also is not knowledgeable at all about the land... If anything Azura (for revelations, or perhaps the other stories as well... considering the major part she plays) is the Malledeus of FE 14.. ~~Ronman5~~ :Corrin, aka the Fates Avatar, is the main Lord character, that much is confirmed. Azura is more like Caeda. Important to the plot, not just a strategist for the Avatar. :True I suppose... but taking a shot at the dark here... Corrin is no strategist... thats why he certaintly is not the "Malledeus" of the group... and I said Azura as while she is a Caeda, she is the one to lead them through the invisible kingdom... But I do see points about that... I believe there truely is no "Malledeus" of FE 14. ~~Ronman5~~ Kliff and Est in FE 15 Kliff has been arguably nerfed in Echoes, making him more average. So I'm not sure if he should be considered his archetype anymore. However, it's a bit strange to just have FE 2 next to his name, when he obviously also appears in FE 15. Est also has the same issue as broken down by a user on reddit. So, I'm not sure how you all want to tackle this. Darthkeeper (talk) 08:05, May 16, 2017 (UTC)Darthkeeper : IMO, both should be included. Sophia IS included after all, and she is even worse than FE15 Est (her bad stats are legendary among people who played FE6). Then there's Rina (that 10% Str/Def on a cavalier) and Ewan (He has lower growth total than Lute for god's sake). But still, why did they have to butcher Est more in each successive game? : As for Kliff, IMO he still fits the archetype, being a LVL 1 villager. As far as I know Mozu was not particularly impressive statwise, yet she counts. : Kruggov (talk) 09:31, May 16, 2017 (UTC) Berkut and Fernand Berkut is a complex one. From what I've seen he can either be a Michalis (Due to his determination to rule Rigel and beat Alm) or a Camus (He know that Rigel is on the brink of destruction, yet he still fights for his dying country). However I'm having trouble deciding which archetype he fits into. So I thought I can get get some help deciding where he belongs. As for Fernand. I'm wondering if he is even based off a archetype. Again what are your opinions? MasterTEH (talk) 15:45, May 20, 2017 (UTC) : I see Berkut as the Michalis archetype, personally. : Fernand, on the other hand, could be part of a new archetype - a type of prejudiced characters who gain that attitude after a tragedy. Oboro from Fates also goes under this category. ...Though personality-wise, he'd be the harsh and sharp-tongued type with an irritable, snappish attitude when provoked, and flustered when teased. Also unpredictable when something pisses him off. And that describes both Fernand and Saizo. : Death Goddess Raiden (talk) 09:52, June 5, 2017 (UTC) Caeda archetype is too inconsistent It should be something like early game Pegasus Knight or important female character who is charismatic. Like there is a pattern with Caeda, Karin, and Lilina recruiting many units, but I don't see Deidre and Sothe having any connection to them besides being love interests to the protagonist. Emperor Hardin (talk) 02:48, May 23, 2017 (UTC) :Love interest/family relation and heavily involved in the plot. That's all there is for this archetype and they fit, no? -- [[User:KhangND|'Khang']] (talk) 11:17, May 23, 2017 (UTC) ::The Caeda archetype seems to be one we determined ourselves (that definitely, with complete certainty, was not on the article when I started reading this wiki back in 2011) so it appears to be the matter of however we define it. This we might have to wait for Otherarrow to return for. --Thenewguy34 15:48, May 23, 2017 (UTC) :::I caught this browsing by chance (I still read the wiki!) and if I was still actively editing and stressing myself out curating this particular page, I'd have axed this one, for what it's worth. Don't take this as "this is what you must do" or anything though, I'm just passing by.--Otherarrow (talk) 16:18, May 23, 2017 (UTC) ::::I actually have never been bothered looking at this page until you're away. Now that I'm involved, all I can see is that this page is way too subjective. Unless we find a better way to present this page, where people could have a clearer view of the key conditions of each archetype (lorewise/statwise), this page will never stop being the page with most revisions/edit wars. -- [[User:KhangND|'Khang']] (talk) 16:37, May 23, 2017 (UTC) ::::L Any Love interest that is involved with the plot is far too generic for my tastes. There needs to be a specific pattern. I think it needs to be rewritten or axed as Otherarrow suggested. Some characters that should probably be added I really think that Ricken (FE13) definitely qualifies for the Merrick archetype; as do Lon'qu (FE13) as a Navarre, and Mark (FE7) as a Malledus. I could maybe argue that Sumia (FE13) is a Caeda, though that's kind of debatable. Actually, as noted above, this archetype in of itself is really debatable; maybe it could be specifically a Pegasus Knight who is also a love interest, is implied to be the most "canon", and/or is heavily involved in the plot? I've noticed that love interests that tend to be pushed the most tend to be Pegasus Knights (or are false love interests in the case of Elincia). Or maybe perhaps a love interest character who can recruit other characters? Also, I don't know if this counts as an archetype, and I could be wrong since I'm relatively new to this fandom, but I've noticed that if the Lord has a sister that isn't a Lord themselves (or at least one of them if there's many, i.e. Corrin), they are overwhelmingly likely to be healers. Mainly, Elice, Mist, Lissa, Elise and Sakura come to mind. Is this an "Elice archetype" or just a coincidence? Teetdidkya (talk) 10:48, May 25, 2017 (UTC) :Welcome to the most subjective place on the wiki. The characters you proposed have all been rejected to my memory, and why? I have no idea, this should be changed somehow. :Your new archetype proposal doesn't seem to be qualified imo, simply cuz there are not enough candidates, and 2 of your candidates already belonged to the Maria archetype (Mist and Elise). -- [[User:KhangND|'Khang']] (talk) 15:02, May 25, 2017 (UTC) Ricken does not belong in the Merric archetype, as he does not have a mentor or teacher that ultimately has foresight over his training - every member of the Merric archetype does, and Ricken does not. Lon'qu is not a recruitable enemy, a necessity to be a member of the Navarre archetype. Mark as a Malledus I do not remember being brought up; if Otherarrow did reject Mark as a Malledus I would have to hear his rationale first. I see your point but I have a very strong feeling Otherarrow may have removed him from that list in the past. I removed the Caeda archetype and so far Khang has not objected to its removal so that idea is rather dead. --Thenewguy34 15:35, May 25, 2017 (UTC) :I wasn't the one suggested or added the Caeda archetype though, but since it got issues, so yeah, gone it should. -- [[User:KhangND|'Khang']] (talk) 16:11, May 25, 2017 (UTC) A page for rejected archetypes? So I've been thinking if this would help, like creating another page (such as Archetype/Rejected) to include rejected characters of certain archetypes or even an archetype in a whole. This would likely reduce some issues with the page, like people will know why their choices were rejected and other people won't add the similar ones later. Any thoughts? -- [[User:KhangND|'Khang']] (talk) 16:21, May 25, 2017 (UTC) :That would probably for the best, but Archetypes are so subjective that in some cases character X counts for one person, but not another (like, is Iagohans a Michalis? Are Boyd and Nolan Bord and Cord despite the two not being associated with each other in any way? etc). I will say though, having rejected archetype ideas is probably a good idea until we can dig up those artbook scans of IS's official take on these, as folks tend to group together characters as a thing under some pretty general things, such as "all first of X class" or "all members of X class who don't fit archetype Y". :Ideally, this page would only include the archetypes we definitely know are things, like Cain and Abel we know are things and who IS lists for them up to New Mystery (ironically, Cain 2 and Alva aren't), we know Jagen is a thing (and I read once that IS considers Oifey and Jagen as interchangeable but no source on that), but do we know if Merric is a thing? If Jeorge is a thing? Etc. :Also, if it wasn't completely unprofessional to do, I'd put in large text, big bold letters "Mustafa is a not a Camus" at the top of the page.--Otherarrow (talk) 23:19, May 26, 2017 (UTC) ::I mean, this Archetype page in general is hard to classify. I mean we are pretty strict on it, but the outlines requiring that the characters follow strict personality quirks or game circumstances If we were to do a Rejected page, then I think the best way would be to do like a character misconception for each character where we explain why certain characters are not qualified for certain archetypes. At the same time, it still leave the room for debate about characters and we have overturned previously unmentioned types if there are enough evidence. But I suppose we could just copy the pages section by section and just mention why certain character's don't fit. For example, using our ever popular Mustafa and recently Scarlet: 'Camus' *'Mustafa' - While Mustafa does not bear ill will to the player's army and allows his men to leave the battlefield, Mustafa does not play as large of a role in the story. He appear in one sole chapter and is the boss of that sole chapter. He fights against the player not out of loyalty to his nation, but fear to the repercussions if he turns tailcoat. 'Minerva' *'Scarlet' - While clad in Red like most Minervas, she does not join the player's army after being convinced by the main Lord of the game to switch sides and fight their homeland. Scarlet was already rebelling against Nohr by the time the player encounters and recruits her in Birthright and fights against Vallan, whom she has no prior connection to prior to being recruited. Something like that. What do you think?—Nauibotics (talk) 03:52, September 15, 2017 (UTC) :::Sounds good to me =] -- [[User:KhangND|'Khang']] (talk) 11:38, September 15, 2017 (UTC) ::::Alright I finally got around to making the page so check it out: Archetype/Rejected—Nauibotics (talk) 02:24, September 25, 2017 (UTC) So should O'Neill count as a Gazzak? I'm unsure about counting O'Neill as a member of the Gazzak/beginning bandit archetype. While he fits more criteria and is thuggish, O'neill is a member of the Grado army and unlike Dimaggio or Gerrard is never implied to take part in pillaging. I've also added Thief Head from Echoes, but slightly unsure as he's on the third encounter in the game, but is the first boss in Echoes to not be a wholly generic unit. Anyone else have anything to add or suggest? Emperor Hardin (talk) 21:32, June 6, 2017 (UTC) Should there be an Orson archetype? I had this thought after playing SoV, what with Berkut and his romance with Rinea, even after her death and rebirth as a witch, and his descent into madness, which is kinda like Orson and Monica, with Lyon bringing her back from the dead as a zombie. This might just be wishful thinking that IS might do more villains like Orson (who is really good in my eyes), but I think it's worth noting. :The thing is, there are only two examples of that happening. I do not recall there being any other examples of characters like Orson and Berkut in the series. Its not enough to qualify them as an Archetype.—Nauibotics (talk) 04:35, June 13, 2017 (UTC) It feels like there's an unmarked archetype. I'm not exactly sure WHEN it began, but I certainly feel it is there. The Lowen/Franz archetype. Often, when we get the Red and Green knights, there seems to be a third unit of the same class who wears yellow. They will either have very high defense, but weak attack power (See Lowen and Valbar) or have higher Attack and lower Defense (see Franz, Makalov, and Kagero). While part of me wants to also mention Kellam, he is a different class from Awakening's Cain/Abel duo plus excels in both Strength and Defense. Otherwise, this strange trend -- one extreme or the other on the third yellow knight -- does feel like a trend. Thought? 03:47, June 15, 2017 (UTC) :But here's some problems with that "Archetype"; first off, some of your "examples" are pretty weak. Lowen has no affiliation to either Sain or Kent. Same could be said of Valbar to Lukas and Forsyth, Makalov to Kieran and Oscar. Second an archetype needs more than just color similarites, personality is often consistent among Archetypes. Lastly, they need some special trait that separates them from other characters like Navarre is generally an enemy recruited Myrmidon or Merric being a Wind Mage taught by a Wendell. All of these "Lowen/Franz" units really have nothing that feels similar other than perhaps a yellow color affinity. —Nauibotics (talk) 09:19, June 15, 2017 (UTC) :Your proposal is also based on stats, which is fairly subjective imo, not to mention the inconsistency. --[[User:KhangND|'Khang']] (talk) 10:22, June 15, 2017 (UTC) : Is Iago a Gharnef? He's an evil sorcerer and schemer.Urd the Dork (talk) 13:39, June 18, 2017 (UTC) Lachesis Archetype? I feel like there are enough of these characters to fill it in. They're all nobles, posh, pampered, and are very annoying if you don't know them. Some of them have a brother whom they are extremely attached to. So would this count as an archetype even though some of them don't share classes? RagingFE (talk) 14:02, July 6, 2017 (UTC)RagingFE :And your candidates? -- [[User:KhangND|'Khang']] (talk) 14:57, July 6, 2017 (UTC) :::My personal additions would be Lachesis, Clarine, maybe Priscilla, Maribelle, and Echoes Clair. :::RagingFE (talk) 02:39, July 13, 2017 (UTC)RagingFE ::::#Your candidates are not consistent with the personality condition as you proposed (Priscilla and Clair). ::::#They don't share classes (Lachesis and Clair) ::::#The only conditions that they probably fulfill is being nobles, and having a close brother (though I'm uncertain if Maribelle have one). ::::Too many issues, so no for me. -- [[User:KhangND|'Khang']] (talk) 15:04, July 21, 2017 (UTC) Tactitian (FE7) The Tactitian of Blazing Blade should be a Malledus right? He's the one giving out the strategies and talks to the main lord in the very same way certain characters would talk to a Malledus. He should count right?GreatDane112 (talk) 21:38, July 18, 2017 (UTC) :He's a complete non-character with no dialogue or presence in the story whatsoever. So no.--Otherarrow (talk) 21:55, July 18, 2017 (UTC) Jeorge as the other archer archetype? Noticed that several archers like Jeorge, Klein, Innes, Shinon and Takumi fit here. They tend to be more aloof than the Gordins they mentored and more often than not can show up as Snipers.Urd the Dork (talk) 15:32, July 30, 2017 (UTC) Mae and Boey So I have taken a notice in something. Mae and Boey seem to also represent the Cain and Abel Archetype. Boey wears green based clothing while Mae wears red based clothing. Also, their stats seem to work in the same manner as the archetype. Sure, Mae is the more laid back one while Boey is more serious, but the archetype does have it labeled that some Cain and Abel are either reversed or different. Omegaxis1 (talk) 14:38, July 20, 2017 (UTC) :Opposed. I think the key condition for them to fulfill for the archetype here is that they must be cavaliers. Along with the red/green condition, they are 2 clear conditions that are not subjective. -- [[User:KhangND|'Khang']] (talk) 14:42, July 21, 2017 (UTC) ::I can't say that non-cavaliers are an issue, after all both Kaze-Saizo (ninjas) and Lukas-Forsyth (soldiers) pairs are included. Although I'm a bit iffy about Mae and Boey counting for Cain/Abel, just noting that non-cav pairs have appeared before. Kruggov (talk) 15:09, July 21, 2017 (UTC) ::Yeah, we've already had non-cavaliers be done at this point. I still move that Mae and Boey be included. Because it sort of makes sense if you think about it. Celica and Alm travel their own routes. So they're bound to come across some archetypes of their own. Alm finds the Cain/Abel archetype with Lukas/Forsyth, and Celica has Mae/Boy as her Cain/Abel archetype. Omegaxis1 (talk) 15:18, July 21, 2017 (UTC) ::I don't think Boey is "green enough", especially his original art. Then again Forsyth and Lukas count now. Which I can see why, but am also a little puzzled about. ::Darthkeeper (talk) 09:26, July 30, 2017 (UTC) ::There's been no movement on this topic, so I'll say it again. Based on their personalities and how the series has been going with the Cain and Abel archetype, Mae ad Boey are definitely fitting of the same archetype and believe firmly that they should be listed under such archetype in the wiki page. Omegaxis1 (talk) 22:21, August 28, 2017 (UTC) :::If non-cavalier is acceptable here, then I don't see any reason to object. -- [[User:KhangND|'Khang']] (talk) 11:41, September 2, 2017 (UTC) Felicia/Jakob as Oifeys? Do Felicia or Jakob really qualify as Oifeys? While they do join in poromoted classes, they are about as powerul as a tier 1 character (with accelerated exp gain and 40 levels to compensate). Kruggov (talk) 15:05, September 3, 2017 (UTC) :Well, the only part of them that is slightly off is their starting stats. Otherwise, they do have the makings of an Oifey IMO. They are Promoted units who are received early in the game, are slightly weaker than a Jagen (in this case Revelation Gunter) in terms of their starting stats, have decent growths allowing them to function well throughout the game, and are slightly older than the Main lord (at least Jakob fulfills this, but Felicia might not). Either way, I believe that they fit the description rather well.—Nauibotics (talk) 20:41, September 3, 2017 (UTC) :I think it's more of a case of circumstance that they're promoted units. They're designed to be a maid/butler, so they have to be promoted. Their internal level is 1 (or really low), effectively making them like any other early game unit. Where as an Oifey doesn't gain that much exp like any other standard promoted unit. My other point is more subjective and contraversial, so I'll omit it. Typically an Oifey/Jagen is a "crutch" character that can hold enemies off, weaken them, get you out of a tight spot, etc. Felicia and Jakob don't really do this. You could argue they can perform these actions, but they do it just as well as any other "standard" unit. Darthkeeper (talk) 23:04, September 24, 2017 (UTC) Fighter/Berserker Archetype? Should there be an archtype for low defense, high STR/SPD solo fighters/berserkers, like Largo, Vaike, or Charlotte? I'm assuming that there need to be about five examples to form an archetype, I just haven't played enough games to get a feel for the unit functionality of any others. GermanTacoss (talk) 03:13, September 24, 2017 (UTC) :You may need more than just stats criteria to define a new archetype, something that is apparent enough to see, stats alone is just too subjective and hard to recognize. --[[User:KhangND|'Khang']] (talk) 03:25, September 24, 2017 (UTC) :What you're describing is the typical traits of the class. Sure there are outliers, such as Hinata who is a slower more bulky myrmidon/samurai, but again that's an outlier. Sometimes thre are even changes to classes, but as your proposal stands, it's not substantial enough to be an archetype. Darthkeeper (talk) 23:08, September 24, 2017 (UTC) ::Archetypes are usually defined by three things. Similar stat trends, similar personality quirks, and similar story roles. We would need something to define a commonality for a fighter/berserker archetype outside of just stats. If not, we could do a lot of Archetypes for similar stat trends.—Nauibotics (talk) 01:46, September 25, 2017 (UTC) Protagonist/Lord archetype Should there be a section for the main character, whose death always results in a game over? I know that's already covered by the Lord page, but some characters whose deaths result in game overs aren't counted as Lords. Plus, Lucina is a lord, but her death is not a game over. There's: *Marth (FE1/3/11/12) *Alm (FE2/15) *Celica (FE2/15) *Sigurd (FE4) *Seliph (FE4) *Leif (FE5) *Roy (FE6) *Lyn (FE7) *Eliwood (FE7) *Hector (FE7) *Eirika (FE8) *Ephraim (FE8) *Ike (FE9/10) *Micaiah (FE10) *Kris (FE12) *Chrom (FE13) *Robin (FE13) *Corrin (FE14) There's a couple other characters who could also count, like Elincia and Sothe, but I haven't played enough of the Tellius series to know. Dont Be a Sad Panda (talk) 17:40, October 10, 2017 (UTC) : Because the archetype is basically "List of lords/avatars". For Chars who are not lords, but still give a game over when they die, it's more interesting, but limited to Enteh/Katri/Shigen from TearRing Saga, Ward from Berwick Saga (AFAIK), chars like Sothe or Elincia from FE10 (also not for the entire game), and avatars. ::Except being a lord does not equal being a protagonist, as Lucina and the avatars show. It also obviously wouldn't include characters who must not die in only one or two chapters, like Nephenee. Dont Be a Sad Panda (talk) 18:11, October 10, 2017 (UTC) ::: Okay, so this is a "Marth" Archetype? Do we really need to make a section for them? Other Archetypes need more context of their similarities and are noted more by players who have played more than one game in the series. If we do keep them, why not make a section for the Medeus then (the god-like final bosses?). This archetype is much too obvious and is techincaly already noted on the Lord page. Keep in mind that this Archetype page has existed for years. Do we really need a section devoted to THE most common Archetype for an obvious character type in the FE series? I say no since it is painfully obvious. This "Marth" archetype and my hypothetical "Medeus" archetype are really unecessary as anyone with any sense of how literature and stories goes knows what a protagonist is and can recognize that all Lord and Lord-like characters share similar traits. This page is more meant for specific units who share unique traits with other characters across the series. Not every game has a Navarre and not every game has a Wendell. However several games do contain characters like the originals.—Nauibotics (talk) 20:40, October 10, 2017 (UTC) ::::And I agree, except I do think there are a couple of notable exceptions, such as Robin, Kris (not required for every chapter, yet their death causes a Game Over), and Lucina (not required for every chapter, nor does her death cause a game over). Plus, not every protagonist is a Lord, with this archetype, we can remove the Lord-like notes on the Lord page. I do think a Medeus archetype would be cool, as the dragon final boss is a recurring trope in the series, yet there is no category for them.Dont Be a Sad Panda (talk) 00:32, October 11, 2017 (UTC) :::::I still feel that it is an unnecessary Archetype given the fact that it is the most obvious trend throughout the series and their only similarities are that their deaths causes an instant game over. Characterization varies, character traits vary, even their stat trends vary. As for the Medeus archetype I mentioned, it's of similar principal and it was more to make a point of not needing to point out the obvious on this page for a character trend that really does not take rocket science to identify. We know that the main lords are the main protagonist and if they die it's game over. It's been that way since the beginning and I strongly doubt that any person who had played FE games could tell this. Even the Medeus. It's obvious that the final boss is usually some sort of godlike being who manipulated the events of the game, thus is the main protagonist. (I say don't put dragons because Ashera is basically the same as the others, just not a huge hulking dragon or heck, a giant demon like Formortis). I strongly doubt you'll get support to have it added but I suppose you can try to convince others to agree with you. That would be the best course of action.—Nauibotics (talk) 06:41, October 11, 2017 (UTC) :Strongly oppose. The criteria for this archetype is main characters, whose death always results in a game over? It's not an archetype, it's just how the games work. No offense, but I don't think this suggestion is even worth a mention in the rejected archetypes page. -- [[User:KhangND|'Khang']] (talk) 14:27, October 11, 2017 (UTC) ::Alright, but if not here, then where? I tried putting Kris and Robin on the Lord page, but because they are not required for every map, I guess they don't count. Plus, there are other characters who could count as Lord-like that aren't listed, mostly from Radiant Dawn.Dont Be a Sad Panda (talk) 17:02, October 11, 2017 (UTC) Okay, after doing some research, I found some more potential Lords, and as far as I know, they are not listed any where else on the wiki. Although, most of these characters are only Lords for a chapter or two.: *Nyna (FE:AS) - In Fall of the Palace and The Beginning. *Minerva (FE:AS) - In The Red Dragon Knight. *Hardin (FE:AS) - In The Red Dragon Knight. *Rickard (FE:AS) - In Thieves' Gang of Justice. *Camus (FE:AS) - In The Beginning. *Sothe (FE10) - While Sothe does not act as a leader, in every chapter before Endgame, his death results in a game over. *Elincia (FE10) - In On Drifting Clouds and Elincia's Gambit. Also, in every chapter before Endgame, her death results in a game over when she's available. *Nephenee (FE10) - In Winds of Rebellion. *Lucia (FE10) - In Tides of Intrigue. *Geoffrey (FE10) - In Geoffrey's Charge and Marauders. *Tibarn (FE10) - In Silent World and Unforgivable Sin. *Sanaki (FE10) - Again, in every chapter she is playable before Endgame, her death is game over. *Merric (FE12) - In Wind and Thunder. *Katarina (FE12) - In Assassins. *Ogma (FE12) - In What was done by the sword shall be undone by the sword. *M/F Kana (FE14) - In End: Lost in the Waves. *Shigure (FE14) - In End: Lost in the Waves. *Rowan (FEW) *Lianna (FEW) I should note though, that while the Archanea Saga and Heirs of Fate characters are only in one chapter, in those chapters, you use units separate from the main game. Also, TV Tropes lists this as an archetype, though I know this doesn't mean anything. Dont Be a Sad Panda (talk) 01:51, October 25, 2017 (UTC) :Ok, here's what defines a Lord in Fire Emblem. They are the main character(s) of their respective games and the defacto leader of their respective armies. They cannot die narratively at any point in the story as their death in battle instantly forces a game over. Save for Nyna, Sothe, Elincia, Geoffrey, and Lucia, none of these character are even remotely important outside of the respective chapter when these game over deaths apply. Rowan and Lianna are just straight up Lord characters. This is pushing things WAY too far and hardly qualifies as an archetype. You need several similar personality trends, recruitment methods, plot trends, appearance consistencies, and game quirks. Their only commonality is that they have a chapter where they cannot die. Personalities and recruitment trends are not consistent. Ergo, this is a further rejected IMO. :I don't know if you understand what an Archetype actually is. An Archetype is an overarching trend and characteristics/personalities displayed by multiple characters across a medium. You can't say an archetype is like "Well Pink Hair is a common trait in a lot of characters, so that's a trend" or "We got the big hulking Knight guy, that's an archetype." No, an Archetype requires very clear trends of specific unique traits that separates them from other characters. Otherwise we'd just be saying that Hawkeye, Largo, Vaike, and Basilio are an archetype just because they are Berserkers/Warriors that don't wear shirts. It doesn't work like that. What else do they share? Gameplay circumstances? No. Story Role? No. Personality? Barely.—Nauibotics (talk) 05:22, October 25, 2017 (UTC) Why is Reinhardt a Camus? He shows none of the traits required of the Archetype, even going so far as to be actively against Leif and his army being convinced his sister was brainwashed because she joined up with them. Ablast6 (talk) 01:50, October 11, 2017 (UTC) :None? You sure? "Only fights for the bad guys out of blind loyalty to their liege" Check. "Has loved ones in the player army who they will fight anyway" Check. "Cares about the wellbeing of their subordinates". I admit I am not super big on Thracia 776's plot but the very fact that he frets over Olwen and tries to "debrainwash" her seems like a check to me? While not explicitly part of the archetype, he also has a black outfit motif, like Camus before him, and has a horse. Removing a character meant to be a clear deconstruction of the Camus archetype because he doesn't hit every point on a checklist seems kinda counterproductive.--Otherarrow (talk) 16:10, October 11, 2017 (UTC) :Like Camus, Reinhardt is worshipped by his subordinates as one of the greatest knights on the continent, being considered the second coming of Tordo, is respected by the enemy, is purposefully much harder then most bosses in the game, and turns down an opportunity to surrender out of loyalty to Freege. Going actively against the player army out of his free will is what makes him a Camus and is why Yen'fay isn't one. Also when was there an offical Camus archetype list? Emperor Hardin (talk) 21:23, October 11, 2017 (UTC) Julius Archetype Should there be an Archetype for characters who are only evil because possesion? Julius, Lyon, and Garon, and Warriors Spoiler are some examples, and i think there are more, but they're escaping me right nowMariokemon (talk) 02:31, October 25, 2017 (UTC) :We need more candidates for an archetype to be recognized. -- [[User:KhangND|'Khang']] (talk) 12:09, October 25, 2017 (UTC) ::Conquest Takumi (he is an enemy, but doesn't really become evil until his posession by Anankos), Revelation Gunter (iffy on that, as he is not evil for long), Veronica (if I assume correctly, she is controlled by whoever it is that is the true BB of Heroes), Awakening Avatar (from bad future that is, posessed by Grima), Marla and Hestia (i think the game mentions they didn't willingly sell their souls to Duma?), maybe even Hardin (if posession by Darksphere counts). ::Also I think we should establish whether the archetype lists people that are EVIL because of posession, or people who are ANTAGONISTS because of posession. If it's the latter we can strike Takumi from the list, as he is an antagonist either way. Kruggov (talk) 13:38, October 25, 2017 (UTC) ::If I recall correctly, wasn't Takumi possesed from the start? Or at least since u joined Nohr?Mariokemon (talk) 14:38, October 25, 2017 (UTC) :::Takumi is possessed when he is kidnapped in Birthright and at some point in Conquest (either when he "died" or earlier). He is not possessed in Revelation. Marla and Hestia are Witches which makes them more or less living corpses forcefully loyal to Duma rather than being possessed by Duma himself. —Nauibotics (talk) 19:53, October 25, 2017 (UTC) :This indeed seems like a potential archetype, consider the candidates: Hardin, Julius, Lyon, Garon, Veronica (or Bruno, he seems to fit more). They do share a common trait of personality before and after being possessed: gentle or kindhearted -> ruthless, cruel. I'm not sure about the Awakening Avatar though, he's kind of different from the rest aside from being possessed. -- [[User:KhangND|'Khang']] (talk) 11:20, October 26, 2017 (UTC) Does Valter counts? Because while he was corrupted by a lance, rather than possesion, it kind of fits the Archetype. Also, what about Darios and Vigarde? -- 13:01, October 26, 2017 (UTC) : Valter was not posessed. More like the lance drove him batshit crazy. IIRC, supports with Duessel show that Valter was still a jerk even before using the lance, it's just his negative character traits grew exponentally afterwards. : Darios is a definite yes - he is the "Warriors Spoiler" up above. : Vigarde is a no for the same reasons Nauibotics declined Marla/Hesita - he is pretty much a corpse controlled by Lyon. Kruggov (talk) 16:38, October 26, 2017 (UTC) Pardon, I haven't noticed it was mentioned above. To be fair, it doesn't seem to make that much difference, as the writing is quite on the wall. What about SoV act 5 and FE8 dragon spoilers, then? if by Dragon Spoiler, you mean Morva, its the same with Vigarde. He's pretty much a skelleton controled by Reiv Mariokemon (talk) 23:52, October 26, 2017 (UTC) So as it stands, we have a good number of candidates *Hardin (FE3) *Julius (FE4) *Lyon (FE8) *Garon (FE14) *Takumi (FE14 Conquest) *Gunter (FE14 Revalation) *Veronica (FEH) *Darios (FEW) am i missing anyone? Mariokemon (talk) 05:01, October 30, 2017 (UTC) :I'd strike Takumi and Gunter from the list, with the established list, they don't seem to fit well enough, being possessed but later recover and join the player, while the others are possessed and recover only until they're near death or never recover at all. With that said, I'd strike Veronica too, as the story of FEH is far from ending, it's hard to tell if/how she is possessed. The candidates left would be: :*Hardin (FE3/12) :*Julius (FE4) :*Lyon (FE8) :*Garon (FE14) :*Takumi (FE14 Conquest) - Edited :*Darios (FEW) :An archetype should have solid criterias, or else the list would end up too long and subjective. What we have so far: Characters that become evil due to possession, they share a common trait of personality before and after being possessed, and possibly, become a major antagonist from the point they're possessed onwards. --[[User:KhangND|'Khang']] (talk) 11:10, October 30, 2017 (UTC) :But Takumi is placed for Conquest, not Birthright or Revelations. Like Xander is the Camus archetype in Birthright, Takumi never joins us in Conquest and gets completely possessed by Anankos. So he would still fit the bill for the Julius archetype. Omegaxis1 (talk) 12:23, October 30, 2017 (UTC) ::Alright, edited the list. -- [[User:KhangND|'Khang']] (talk) 11:28, October 31, 2017 (UTC) ::Hardin is the only one here who was possesed by an object, not a living being. Should he still qualify? Also, while Gunter does join in Revalations, he is evil thanks to Anankos. Mariokemon (talk) 15:09, October 31, 2017 (UTC) Rowan and Lianna Samson/Arran? You can only pick one at the start, and you dont get to play as the other one (with a few exeptions) so do they count?Mariokemon (talk) 15:30, October 25, 2017 (UTC) :I haven't played Warriors to know about it but if I may ask a question, in the Story Mode, since you pick to play as Rowan or Lianna, is the other one absolutely unable to be played in the Story Mode after you choose one of them? If both can be played in the main story simultaneously, then no. Samson/Arran is defined by the complete inability to play as the other unit you did not choose in the story without playing another playthrough of the game. —Nauibotics (talk) 21:22, October 25, 2017 (UTC) ::They are playable after the army splits. As such, they don't belong in the archetype. Kruggov (talk) 16:38, October 26, 2017 (UTC) Est and Kliff Archetype Wouldn't those two archtypes be the same thing, like Jagens and Oifeys?Their only distinction is being that one is lte game and one is early game. So should their be something like "Pure Ests" and "Kliffs"? They both start off with bad stats but are usually saved by good growths. ThunderBrine (talk) 20:01, October 25, 2017 (UTC) :The Jagen Archetype defining trait is where all units in this archetype share the trait of being an early game promoted unit with strong starting stats in comparison to the rest of the cast but are inferior to many units who come in afterwards in the long run. More often than not, they serve a mentor role or are retainers for the main Lord. Jagen Archetype gets two separate categories since they follow two trends of either a veteran soldier of great age who grows poorly due to their age or ailment, resulting in inferior ending stats compared to other units or a soldier that is slightly older than the main lords, but still relatively young, and has competent growths that make them reliable units in the end with the rest of the army. They share a lot, but differ in two aspects. :Ests are trained units obtained late game, but are not statistically bad with their starting stat totals when compared to other units who are obtained or trained to their level. Ests members only downside is that their late availability makes them hard to immediately put to use without careful planning to train, but are immediately strong investments due to strong growth rates. Kliffs are Villager/Trainee units who grow exponentially due to innate potential due to their growth rates but are hindered by the fact that their starting classes are ill suited for battle, leading to poor starting stats. Their only shared traits are strong growths. Recruitment time is not the same, starting base stats are not the same, and more often than not, narrative role is not the same. Merging the Est and Kliff archetype makes no sense as they share only stat growth similarities, which really Kliffs are MUCH stronger, and nothing else.—Nauibotics (talk) 21:19, October 25, 2017 (UTC) Catria Archetype This is more a story-wise archetype than a gameplay-wise archetype, and it about all the character who have experienced unrequited love, which the series has made quite a batch. While Catria and Palla both experience this at the same time, Catria tends to be more famous. There's Catria (with Marth), Palla (with Abel), Faye (with Alm), Clair (with Alm), Tobin (with Clair), Leon (with Valbar), Delthea (with Clive), Reinhardt (with Ishtar), Lyon (with Eirika), Titania (with Griel), Meg (with Zihark), Cordelia (with Chrom), etc. Would it be worthy enough to be considered an archetype or no? ThunderBrine (talk) 01:26, October 26, 2017 (UTC) :Again, you need more solid similarities such as, again, personalities, stat growths trends, story roles, etc. There are no other common link between these characters aside from an unrequited love, which is not something unique to Fire Emblem. This would be another rejected. Heck, half of these characters are not defined by these unrequited loves. Half of these, that unrequited love is barely a foot note of their character. I don't define Catria, Palla, Leon, Delthea, Lyon, and Titania by these unrequited loves they have. Half the time, these are mentioned on the side. Some like Faye, Reinhardt, Meg, and Cordelia are though. But even then, these character share nothing in common elsewhere. :Rule of thumb, to define an archetype you need similar personalities, story roles, growth rates, and special gameplay quirks. You should be able to fulfill at least three of these. Also, shared starting classes are often a defining factor but not always. You need to really hone in on finding these sorts of consistencies rather than proposing just one particular characterization that just so happens to apply to a few select characters. The problem with all of your proposed archetypes thus far are that they are centered around a singular trait that are not really unique and definitive to the character. These things you propose are trends, not Archetypes. —Nauibotics (talk) 03:12, October 26, 2017 (UTC) Riev or Lyon for Gharnef? It seems to be a back and forth for who is the gharnef here. Riev is the one summoning the monsters, hes the cause of of a lot of the trouble in the game, and he is fought before the finale. Lyon kinda fits, but why wouldn't Riev too? Mariokemon (talk) 01:18, October 27, 2017 (UTC) :Lyon fits perfectly, not kinda. Riev does not qualify, because he's not responsible for the main conflict in FE8, which is the revival of the Demon King. Also, minor but still matters, he's not defeated before the final boss. -- [[User:KhangND|'Khang']] (talk) 10:56, October 28, 2017 (UTC) Jeorge Lucina I think she qualfies. She claims to be a travler by the name of Marth, but later revealed to be Chrom's daughter, making her plot important Mariokemon (talk) 15:41, October 27, 2017 (UTC) Naesala, a Michalis? While this is more debatable in RD, isn't Naesala a Michalis in PoR? He makes his ambitions very clear, as many of his actions are for the sake of his ambitions, he fights the player as part of the enemy army and isn't recruitable until the very last chapter.-- 16:12, October 27, 2017 (UTC) Cornelius archetype While looking at discussions, I saw someone referencing certain characters such as Emmeryn and Mikoto as a Cornelius type, meaning characters, usually being royal figures, who tend to die early on in the story. While some of them aren't even playable, such a recurring role wouldn't be considered an archetype?-- 00:05, November 3, 2017 (UTC) :well, I mean, that certainly does happen. I can name Hector, Elbert, Uther, Fado, and Greil as other examples of this happening. It could work out, all things considered.—Nauibotics (talk) 02:01, November 3, 2017 (UTC) :Is it parents dying early or at all? Since Elbert is midgame, and Uther is endgame. Mariokemon (talk) 03:14, November 3, 2017 (UTC) Is Hans a Michalis? he is mad, bloodthirsty, and wants power for himself. Mariokemon (talk) 05:46, November 3, 2017 (UTC)